The fascist regime that made you a moron: Thanks dJonkey

[Akzle]

Er..I think you'll find the "crown" in question is now that relating to the Queen of New Zealand, not of the United Kingdom.

or perhaps the US incorporated company called "the crown in right of new zealand"...
but, carry on with your story...

the locals would be even less better off.

that's a matter of opinion

[Oscar]

or perhaps the US incorporated company called "the crown in right of new zealand"...
but, carry on with your story...


that's a matter of opinion

The fact that the Maori made their treaty with the Crown is one of the things that stops us moving on, constitutionally.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Er..I think you'll find the "crown" in question is now that relating to the Queen of New Zealand, not of the United Kingdom.

Your point, presumably, being that for official purposes they are the same actual person fulfilling two different constitutional roles in two separate countries?

[Voltaire]

Er..I think you'll find the "crown" in question is now that relating to the Queen of New Zealand, not of the United Kingdom.

They can write what they like of bits of paper, still part of the Commonwealth for whats thats worth....

Nice that they send the Grandkids down to see us from time time Kates got a nice arse.

[HenryDorsetCase]

see.
1. you've been taught backwards, and apparently lack the intelligence to question it.

2. what exactly is a person, and what exactly is new zealand?
!

1. well clearly.
2. I have no clue. Please enlighten me.

upvote for "Lord Axlerod the Over-enthusiastic" though.

[mashman]

If you think you arent, I suggest you go and piss on the Governor General's shoes. That will demonstrate to you the might of the British Empire, to which you are subject. Either Jerry will knock you on your arse himself (double hard bastard, don't doubt that for a second) or one of his minions will.

Do you clowns even know what fascism is? because where we live is not it. Just a clue there.

I'll pick and choose my time for explaining how much of a subject I'm not to whatever official decides to bring society's law against me. I don't recognise the crown. It can fuck right off along with as many subjects who deem themselves to be beholden to some pseudo-bureaucratic as possible. Your idea has merit and I will consider it .

Anything that requires a law is fascism. Anything other than that is bullshit mumbo jumbo that some fascist retarded fuck wrote down in order for 121 people to ummm and ahhhhhh over before calling it a law of society. The crown might own you, but they don't own me, they only own the corporate they "created" without my consent when I was born. Given that, I fail to see how they can deem themselves as representing my physical being when they clearly don't, because I do.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I'll pick and choose my time for explaining how much of a subject I'm not to whatever official decides to bring society's law against me. I don't recognise the crown. It can fuck right off along with as many subjects who deem themselves to be beholden to some pseudo-bureaucratic as possible. Your idea has merit and I will consider it .

Anything that requires a law is fascism. Anything other than that is bullshit mumbo jumbo that some fascist retarded fuck wrote down in order for 121 people to ummm and ahhhhhh over before calling it a law of society. The crown might own you, but they don't own me, they only own the corporate they "created" without my consent when I was born. Given that, I fail to see how they can deem themselves as representing my physical being when they clearly don't, because I do.

As Mr Axlerod the Over-enthusiastic has pointed out, I am none too bright, and did not understand your submission.

[Oscar]

Your point, presumably, being that for official purposes they are the same actual person fulfilling two different constitutional roles in two separate countries?

For the record, I think it is stupid, but yes, there is a constitutional difference between the Queen of England and the Queen of NZ, despite it being the same person.

Personally, I don't understand why we just don't change the title of our Head of State from "Monarch" to "President", ditch the Queen and apply the title President to the Gov. General.

[Oscar]

I'll pick and choose my time for explaining how much of a subject I'm not to whatever official decides to bring society's law against me. I don't recognise the crown. It can fuck right off along with as many subjects who deem themselves to be beholden to some pseudo-bureaucratic as possible. Your idea has merit and I will consider it .

Anything that requires a law is fascism. Anything other than that is bullshit mumbo jumbo that some fascist retarded fuck wrote down in order for 121 people to ummm and ahhhhhh over before calling it a law of society. The crown might own you, but they don't own me, they only own the corporate they "created" without my consent when I was born. Given that, I fail to see how they can deem themselves as representing my physical being when they clearly don't, because I do.

..and yet you use the hospitals, schools (although there is plenty of evidence that you dodged a decent education) roads, own property and generally avail yourself of the trappings of a democracy.

Why don't you trot along to Parliament, walk into the Chamber and loudly declare your beliefs whilst buggering the Speaker?
Or are you just an internet anarchist, an onanist warrior or a common or garden blowhard?

[Akzle]

The fact that the Maori made their treaty with the Crown is one of the things that stops us moving on, constitutionally.

there is no constitution. by which it could be constitutionally stopping any shit....

did not understand your submission.

no. you have no standing, and i expect, nor was he submitting shit to you.


come on lawyerjew, it sais it in your jewscript. this is like an open book exam...
what is a person, and what is new zealand?

[Oscar]

there is no constitution. by which it could be constitutionally stopping any shit....

Firstly, a constitution is the system by which a state is governed. It can be based on precedent and doesn’t need to be written or codified.
Secondly, the use of the expression “constitutionally speaking” in this case referred to the lack of a constitution, which is caused by the reluctance of Maori to change their relationship with the Crown through the Treaty of Waitangi.

[HenryDorsetCase]

For the record, I think it is stupid, but yes, there is a constitutional difference between the Queen of England and the Queen of NZ, despite it being the same person.

Personally, I don't understand why we just don't change the title of our Head of State from "Monarch" to "President", ditch the Queen and apply the title President to the Gov. General.

I would be jiggy with that. I don't approve of electing the person to hold that office though. I have become more favourable toward the monarchy as I have aged: principally because of my almost complete distrust of politicians. So I don't want to elect someone because they WANT the job. The Royales at least have had concepts of duty and service drilled into them from in utero onward. Having said that, given the way we split our executive, legislative and judicial roles in this country, I acknowlege that electing a President who is a Governor General equivalent (with not much* in the way of actual power - stark contrast with a US president) might not be an issue. Particularly if we get people of the calibre of Paul Reeves, Jerry Mataparae etc.

*I guess we could ask Geoff Whitlam about that, right?

[HenryDorsetCase]

come on lawyerjew, it sais it in your jewscript. this is like an open book exam...
what is a person, and what is new zealand?

It ain;t like no open book exam I ever took.

I am a person.

I can see New Zealand from my house.

[oldrider]

it'll need to be signed by a) me and/or b) god.

I told you Akzle ... I am not signing anything until after the election! : God!

[oldrider]

Firstly, a constitution is the system by which a state is governed. It can be based on precedent and doesn’t need to be written or codified.
Secondly, the use of the expression “constitutionally speaking” in this case referred to the lack of a constitution, which is caused by the reluctance of Maori to change their relationship with the Crown through the Treaty of Waitangi.

Maori need the treaty like Zionism needs persecution! ... Without it they are just like anybody else - these things are their worldly points of difference!

Because of that don't expect these things to ever change!